David Cameron Is One And One

British prime minister David Cameron was well on his way to winning the Bugs Bunny Memorial "What a Maroon" Award for his characterization of Gaza as a "prison camp" during his genuflection to Turkish sensibilities while speaking in Ankara. Cameron tossed away his chances to be an official "Maroon" when he followed his exercise in asininity with an unprecedented bit of blunt truth telling in India.

In the context of a speech to Indian businessmen, Mr Cameron delivered a view of the role of elements within the Pakistani military and government. He warned Islamabad that it could no longer "look both ways," toward supporting Taliban, the Haqqani network, and LeT and toward "respect as a democracy." His warning in both its starkness and accuracy has been long overdue for issuance in a public forum.

Pakistan has engaged for some time now in what Cameron correctly described as the "export" of terror acts. It is the source of some seventy percent of all recent threatened or executed attacks. That is a ground truth which exists independently of any or all of the WikiLeaks document dump of contemporary notoriety. The role of Pakistan as a country as well as that played by the Directorate of Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) as well as other components of the military and government constitute the unmentionable T. rex in the bathroom.

Mr Cameron has performed a great service by finally publicly pointing to the T. rex and calling it precisely what it is--a thwacking great killing beast.

The reaction of Islamabad's minions was instant, vociferous, and freighted with indignation. It is no surprise that the Pakistani officials pinned the rap on the WikiLeaks documents. Without exception, the worthies of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan claimed (inaccurately) that Mr Cameron had shamefully accepted the low level reports emanating originally from Afghan intelligence agencies as proof of the accusations of partnership between ISI and Taliban.

While numerous items within the WikiLeaks trove do point to the ISI-Taliban linkage and many but not all did originate with Afghan sources, Mr Cameron had no need to rely upon them as evidence for the bang-on nature of his observations. There is evidence aplenty extending back many years and coming forward in time to the testimony of the confessed Times Square bomber of direct Pakistani involvement with terror.

The Indian authorities have demonstrated convincingly that "retired" members of ISI were directly involved in both the planning and execution of the Mumbai attack. Cases in Germany, Austria, and elsewhere in Western Europe have connected the dots of local terror cells and acts with planners, financiers, and operational managers in Pakistan, at least some of whom were employees of ISI.

It was someone in the Pakistani government and most likely ISI who called Osama bin Laden while the Tomahawk missiles were crossing Pakistani airspace. The satellite phone warning allowed bin Laden to get out of the impact area literally minutes before the incoming missiles arrived. In the immediate wake of the Bush ordered invasion of Afghanistan, it was ISI and Pakistani military personnel who held the hands of assorted al-Qaeda and Taliban heavyweights as they left Tora Bora almost literally one step ahead of the Americans.

It was ISI and the Pakistani military (which was the government at the time) who formulated an agreement with Taliban and the Haqqani network which opened the FATA as a sanctuary for their displaced fighters in the years following the American led invasion. The Fearless Fugitives of the One True Faith were provided all facilities necessary for their recovery and rejuvenation by ISI. Had it not been for ISI and the larger military/government understanding and support, the war in Afghanistan would have ended long ago.

That is the record. That is the evidence behind Mr Cameron's indictment. That is the justification for his demand that Islamabad choose a side and stick to it.

In truth, Islamabad should not have it both ways. It should be denied the opportunity to work both sides of the street.

However, as pointed out in yesterday's post on this site, the US and UK need Pakistan far more than the Pakistanis need us. That is the conundrum facing both Foggy Bottom and Whitehall.

Mr Cameron did suggest a viable way out of the morass. It is a route which is neither pleasant to contemplate nor easy to travel. It consists of forcing Islamabad to make a choice: With the civilized states or with the savage primitives of violent political Islam.

The way in which this choice can be forced upon Islamabad consists at root of a truth offensive. This means telling the Pakistanis and, perforce, the world all that we known and can prove concerning the close relationship between ISI or other elements of the Pakistani government and military on the one hand and groups practicing violent political Islam on the other. As an accompaniment, the US, the UK, and other civilized states must make continuation of assistance contingent upon Pakistan making the right choice--and abiding to it.

The reaction of the Pakistani establishment to Mr Cameron's remarks shows it is embarrassed by the truth. Embarrassed to the point of hysteria. This implies the establishment in government and the elite sectors of society which support the government are vulnerable in this area, the area of being openly associated with the primitives of violent political Islam, which is a very real existential threat to both the establishment and the elite.

The vulnerability exists. It exists to be exploited. To be exploited for the interests and benefit of the US, the UK, and the other civilized states. To be exploited for the interest and benefit of Afghans and whatever state they finally create. Even to be exploited for the interest and benefit of Pakistan, its government, its elite sectors, and its future.

Sometimes truth is not only the best, most effective weapon, it is the only weapon. Mr Cameron had both the foresight and intestinal fortitude to recognize this. And, use it.

Drawing A Line In The Water

After the Obama administration's dismal record of drawing lines in ever-shifting sands, as with the Iranian nuclear program, it was more than a bit refreshing to observe Secretary of State Clinton draw a line in water, specifically the South China Sea the other day. Overlooked in the brouhaha started by the Wikileaks Affair, Ms Clinton announced last Friday during the ASEAN meeting in Hanoi that the US had "a national interest" in seeking a mediated end to the dispute between China and other, much smaller Asian states over the Paracel and Spratly islands.

The myriad of very small islands, coral outcroppings, and reefs are unimportant in and of themselves. What is important, the only reason there has been a dispute between no fewer than six countries as to who owns what, is the documented presence of significant undersea oil deposits.

China, along with Vietnam, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan, and Brunei claim all or parts of the thousand or so dots on the map which constitute the land portion of the disputed undersea territory. China and Vietnam have exchanged shots over the islands. Both have attempted with varying degrees of success to establish a physical, military presence on at least some of the larger (more than one acre) islands. To date China has gotten the better in the confrontations.

Not surprisingly, the Trolls of Beijing were not pleased by the Clinton declaration. Already greatly perturbed by the recent displays of power projection undertaken by the US in waters close to China, the Trolls expressed great displeasure with the temerity of the US position.

It was bad enough when Ohio class Tomahawk equipped submarines popped up around the Chinese maritime periphery. Matters were worsened (from the perspective of the Trolls) when a major task group centered on the Nimitz class carrier George Washington hove over the horizon for joint exercises with the South Korean navy. Then the Americans had the unmitigated gall to aver that they had an interest in the resolution of the ongoing South China Sea contretemps.

The nerve of those Americans! Their role, their only role, is to borrow Chinese money and buy products made in China. Beyond that, the round-eyed, big nosed barbarians are supposed to keep quiet and at a great distance from the Center Empire and its sovereign interests.

Two American oil companies have signed agreements with Vietnam allowing exploratory drilling in the part of the South China Sea claimed by Hanoi. In their counterblast to the Clinton declaration, the Chinese warned against the drilling. Beijing sounded rather like Buenos Aires did as the drills started turning in the ocean near the Falkland Islands.

It does seem a tad counterintuitive that the Obama administration might be taking a position favorable to offshore oil drilling considering the evident distaste felt for such in the Gulf of Mexico. But, the fact remains that two American companies (among those of other nationalities) want to go after the oil of the South China Sea, and the American Secretary of State went on record as supporting a new form of maritime Open Door policy.

US companies have known of the South China Sea oil for years. Back during the heyday of antiwar protests during the late Sixties, demonstrators often accused the Johnson and Nixon administrations of waging war in Vietnam to protect the future interests of Big Oil. That charge was baseless.

It is less baseless to assert that the US desires to see a quick, mediated end to the Spratly and Parcel dispute in order that drills might spin and oil might flow. This would benefit the US and all other consumers of oil--including the Chinese. Of course, the Chinese would reap much greater benefits if the oil flowed from fields under their control. That is self-evident.

There is, of course, no reason why the US should be supine before the understandable Chinese desire for this benefit. There are, however, a number of reasons other than economic self-interest why the US would seek a regional settlement to this ownership dispute. Chief among these are regional stability and, as a necessary concomitant, establishing limits to Chinese hegemony.

The Trolls of Beijing have already alarmed the smaller states of ASEAN with the Chinese build-up of naval power. The ambitious Chinese naval developments are far in excess of any possible defense need but still insufficient to counter the American power projection capacity. One result of this is a sort of arms race in the region. In the past couple of years, navies have become fashionable with all parties seeking to upgrade theirs. As an example, consider Japan's decision to build a new generation of submarines, the first in thirty years.

The ASEAN states look to the US as a force for regional stability. The governments in the region are realistic enough to understand that stability rests upon military force and the credible political will to use the hardware.

The US Navy is long on hardware. But, given the disarray of what passes for foreign policy under Team Obama, there is grave doubts throughout the ASEAN community about American political will.

The stance taken by the US in the wake of the sinking of the Cheonan went some distance in allaying the concerns pervading ASEAN capitals. The joint US-South Korean exercises as well as other multi-national naval wargames involving Asian forces helped as well. Now, the surprising announcement by Secretary Clinton regarding the dispute has gone even further in convincing directly involved states that the Obama administration can find some backbone under some circumstances.

The key matter, of course, is how long will this newly discovered spine stay intact. Will the US line in the water prove any more lasting, any more real than the past lines in the sand? Or, should the Trolls of Beijing huff and puff a bit more, show a bit more rhetorical fang, will the fresh new Obama backbone find itself afflicted with political osteoporosis?

Time will answer that question as it has so many others over the past eighteen months. It can be hoped that the answer this time is more positive than its predecessors.

The Wikileaks Data Dump Is Flat Out Boring

Reading the Wikileaks Mother Of All Leaks not only provides terminal eye strain, it numbs the brain. It is a tedious slog through a vast swamp of low-level, quotidian reports covering all manner of routine subjects.

The Geek is well prepared for monumental amounts of sheer ennui occasioned by the reading of awesomely repetitive and frightfully mundane materials which are the major product of all wars, particularly those of the "overseas contingency operation" sort. In his various employments, the Geek has spent (subjective) centuries plowing through hundreds of thousands of documents from the Vietnam War as well as other similar conflicts before and after the Great Southeast Asian War Game.

The documents flowing through Wikileaks are of a piece with those of Vietnam, Greece, Malaya, Somalia, portions of the Korean War, the interventions in the Dominican Republic, Panama, El Salvador, and elsewhere. They are inherently without real interest to anyone other than the specialist in the history of fouled up interventions or screwed up attempts at counterinsurgency and its evil cousin, nation-building.

Insofar as the documents have value it is to be found in demonstrating just how long and deeply the Directorate of Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) has been involved with Taliban, al-Qaeda, and the Haqqani network. While that involvement is well known to any and all with both an interest in the dynamics of the AfPak region and a proper orientation in time and place, the repetitive mentions of direct ISI partnership with the "radical extremists" of Taliban et al down to the level of operational planning and execution support provides the sort of detail necessary to counter even the most ardent attempts to portray Islamabad as a reliable ally in the war against the adherents of violent political Islam.

As the Geek has noted in numerous posts (as well as elsewhere), the government and military of Pakistan have worked both sides of the street for more than twenty years. Primarily but not exclusively relying upon ISI, Islamabad has sought consistently and effectively to exploit the opportunities presented by Taliban on the one hand and the US fear and loathing of that group on the other to secure and advance Pakistani national interests.

The Pakistani government and, to an even greater extent, its military deserve credit for pursuing national interest at all costs. The firm focus, dedication, and skill shown by the Pakistanis in keeping their eyes on the prize are all outstanding. The Pakistanis deserve congratulations for their effective exploitation of every opportunity presented in Afghanistan as well as their equally high level of ability at practicing extortion against the US.

Indeed, it does not distort reality to assert the Pakistanis have exceeded even the Israelis in the tail-wags-dog areas of foreign policy. Not only have the Pakistani regimes and ISI both created the threat of violent political Islam in Afghanistan and facilitated the survival of al-Qaeda both before and after the US invasion of 2002, they have used the threat they created to extort US military aid and diplomatic support.

No regime has ever surpassed or even equaled the Pakistani for working both sides of the American street. This accomplishment merits respect.

It also has to be ended.

The difficulty comes in that there is no simple, direct, and certain way to depose the fine folks in Islamabad, particularly at the ISI, from their comfortable position in the catbird seat. The dynamic has existed so long (over twenty-five years) and has become so deeply rooted in the relationship between Pakistan and the US, between Pakistan and Afghanistan, that ending it seemingly defies imagination and reality alike.

Pakistan, in and of itself, presents the fundamental conundrum for policy makers.

The Pakistanis are profoundly anti-American. The fear, loathing, and hatred of the US felt and expressed by so many Pakistanis is such that mere civilian aid projects, simple economic development projects even if carefully planned and executed so as to provide immediate, direct, positive results to the Pakistani public, will do nothing to end or even significantly reduce the anti-American sentiments pervading so many in the country. Of course the probability of civilian projects being so perfect must be rated realistically as close to zero.

Also, the Pakistani population has shifted increasingly to the political Islam side of the Muslim opinion spectrum. The shift started during Partition. It accelerated during the several losing wars fought against India. It was intentionally enhanced by General Zia as a means of developing political coherence among the fractured Pakistani population. Finally, the US invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were used effectively by promoters of both Pakistani nationalism and violent political Islam to give an additional fast boost to radicalization over the past several years.

The population of no country, not Iran, not Saudi Arabia, not Turkey, not even the quasi-country of Palestine, can equal that of Pakistan in embracing the goals, motives, justifications, and methods of violent political Islam. That sorry actuality is most pronounced among the younger elements of the population. And, it must not escape notice, the young provide the wannabe martyrs, the eager trigger-pullers, the guys willing to kill and die.

In Pakistan there are always three public villains: The US, Israel, and India. The relative place on the list may shift from time to time, but overall India occupies the position of Main Enemy, leaving Israel and the US to fight it out for the second spot.

For the government, and, even more, the army, India is always Enemy Number One. It has been that way since Partition. It will stay that way as far into the future as anyone cares to speculate. The English never hated and feared the French, nor the French the Germans with anywhere near the intensity exhibited by the Pakistanis for the Indians. On the other side of the hill, the intensity is nearly equal.

This equation does not bode well for a sudden outbreak of peace, love, and harmony on the sub-continent. The legacy of blood has stood too long for that to be in the tealeaves. Even if the Pakistanis and Indians were to be afflicted with the sort of memory deficiency which characterizes the American public, there have been too many recent events and too many emerging points of friction to provide a basis for genuine conflict resolution.

The focus on India has meant and will continue to mean that Afghanistan serves as a sort of strategic depth for Pakistan. The goal of Islamabad during and after the anti-Soviet war in which the ISI played such a critical role was the establishment of strategic depth. The use of the Islamist Taliban was a brilliant stroke by the ISI and was executed with equal brilliance by Lt General Hamid Gul. The Islamist glue provided Taliban with a coherence unequalled by any of the other contenders for power in post-Soviet Kabul. In violent political struggles, cohesion is the single most important consideration. Taliban had it in spades.

Finally, Pakistan is a member of the nuclear club. It achieved this status despite both American opposition and liberal bribes. Of course, once Pakistan demonstrated its nuclear capability, the regime gained both status internationally and a degree of freedom from coercion it lacked previously.

The US policy regarding Pakistan was governed not by any realistic appraisal of coinciding national interests but rather from a total distaste for the Kremlin leaning governments of India. US policy in Pakistan was a pure artifact of the Cold War. However, the creation of Taliban dominated Afghanistan by ISI just as the Cold War ended made radical shifting of previous US policy difficult.

The emergence of violent political Islam during the Clinton administration locked the US into the long standing stance of accommodating Pakistan. The achievement of a nuclear capability by Pakistan further froze the US into its subordinate role in the bilateral relationship.

As a result Pakistan has had a free hand in simultaneously supporting and aiding Taliban and the Haqqani network while extorting evermore assistance from the US. We have known all of this all along, so the "revelations" of the Wikileaks dump add nothing.

The Pakistanis have proven to be resistant to American hectorings, threats, and blandishments alike. They can take this rejectionist stance because we need them far more than they need us.

Without the minimal cooperation the Pakistanis have provided it would be impossible for us to continue our program of Predator strikes in the FATA. Without the minimal cooperation the ISI has furnished to CIA the flow of actionable intelligence regarding al-Qaeda and Taliban actions and personalities would be lessened, perhaps fatally so. And, without the minimal cooperation of Islamabad it would be impossible to support the forces already deployed in Afghanistan.

Those are representative of the bitter realities upon which members of congress must take a grip as they debate the continuation of the war in Afghanistan and our cooperation with the regime in Islamabad. In short, unless we continue to conform with Pakistani policy dictates, there will be few choices beyond abandoning our efforts in Afghanistan and leaving the place to the locals--and ISI.

We know and have known for years now just what Islamabad is up to in Afghanistan. Islamabad is completely aware that we know. There are no secrets here. This means in turn that there is no room for the US to play bluffs, to wiggle diplomatically, or to coerce credibly.

Back during the Reagan years we let Islamabad get us by the shortest of short hairs. That is where they have us today. Nothing changes that.

Our cone of options has narrowed to two: Go along with Islamabad's tune; get out of the region.

Nothing in the Wikileaks dump changes that. And, in that fact one finds the only matters of interest, the only non-boring matters.

Nationalism Is More Alive--And Legal--Then Ever

Yesterday the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled that the unilateral declaration of independence (UDI) by Kosovo three years ago was and is legal. The ICJ, as well as assorted proponents of Kosovo's independence including the US, maintains that the decision does not constitute a precedent. Instead, it has been argued, the unique threats presented to the Albanian Muslim majority population of Kosovo by the Serbian government and military dictate the decision is not broadly applicable.

Duh.

Certainly there are ethnic groups such as the Kurds in Iraq, Turkey, Iran, and Syria would disagree violently. The Kurds of Iraq insist with total accuracy that they have been the recipients of armed repression by every indigenous Iraqi regime from the 1930s to the present. This representation could be--and is--echoed by the Kurds of Turkey, Iran, and Syria with only slight differences in detail.

If the test of legality for any unilateral declaration of independence is that of violence perpetrated or threatened by a central government against a region and its people on racial, ethnic, linguistic, or religious grounds then a Kurdish UDI would be as legal as that of Kosovo. So would UDIs issued by other definable groups which constitute a majority in a given region but a minority in the country overall.

There are a number of such today. The Hungarian minorities in defined and narrowly circumscribed areas of Romania and Slovakia are in that number. So also are the Armenians of Azerbaijan's Nagorno-Karabah. While the degree of armed repression or informal but tacitly approved violence directed against these groups is both less than that suffered by the Kurds and even arguable as to existence, a plausible case for justifiable UDI can be made.

There are numerous other ethno-linguistic minorities constituting majorities in definable regions throughout Europe. The Basques are one. So also are the inhabitants of Catalonia. The Scots might say they merit more independence than the amount offered by devolution. The German speakers of the Italian Alps may suddenly discover they have a unique national consciousness and identity.

Nor are other parts of the world immune to the virus of nationalism. Russia is willing, even eager, to see South Ossetia and Abkhazia as genuine national entities deserving of both sovereignty and Russian protection but are not of a similarly generous view when confronted by nationalist insurgencies in the North Caucasus. China is flatly opposed to new nationalisms--when such inflame Tibet or the predominantly Muslim provinces of west China.

Indonesia is currently facing nationalism within its large and diverse in all things except religion population. The provinces of Aceh (which is increasingly Islamist leaning) and West Papua have found they are incompatible with the rest of Indonesia.

The list can go on, but this is enough to outline some of the implications resident in the central part of the ICJ ruling: The protection of the territorial integrity of an established state is no longer unassailable, no longer automatically paramount. This is a seismic shift.

A cardinal principle for years has been dethroned from unquestioned legitimacy. States are no longer sacrosanct. Provided a identifiable and circumscribed region is inhabited by an identifiable and self-conscious majority which is simultaneously a minority subject to persecution at the hands of the larger population and government, its rights of self-determination (and, by implication) self-defense allow for UDI. The provisos of minority status in the larger state and liability to persecution seem to be the critical limit to the ICJ decision as regards applicability or status as a precedent.

Whether this limit is meaningful in the real world outside of courtrooms and chanceries is debatable at best. However, even if the limit defined by the Kosovo decision is observed, there is no bar to the Kurds issuing a UDI without delay. There is no doubt but the Kurds in all four countries where they constitute a regional majority but national minority have been at the totally untender mercies of the central regimes for generations.

Other self-conscious and easily definable minorities such as the Muslims in China and the Tibetans can do the same with legality even if without success. So can the folks in West Papua.

For other self-aware minorities such as the Basques and Catalonians to say nothing of the Scots, Welsh, and German-speakers of the formerly Austrian Alps the same does not apply. There is no recent history of repression or persecution. The Hungarians of Slovakia and Romania fall somewhere in the middle. These ethnic and linguistic minorities have suffered repression in the past and still labor under unofficial and technically illegal disabilities and prejudice. The Kosovo decision is not relevant to any of these groups or the context in which they live.

Now for the Department of Irony. There is a whole bunch of irony resident in the ICJ decision and the reactions of various governments to it. The Russians have already been alluded to. The Kremlin is flatly schizophrenic in the matter. UDI is good for South Ossetia and Abkhazia but very, very bad for the North Caucasus states.

In Washington we see the utter irony of the post-modern, post-nationalist Obama administration eagerly embracing the Kosovo decision and urging all countries which have not yet recognized Kosovo as an independent, sovereign state to do so immediately. At the same time the administration in keeping with its predecessors sees no justification for Kurdish independence.

The Obama administration is generally of the view that the era of the nation-state has (thankfully) come to an end. Except for Kosovo. In its double think the administration not unlike the internationalist minded elites of the European Union is out of step with many, if not most, of humanity. The devolution of power to lower levels, to smaller groups of people sharing history, language, traditions, religion, and defining mythology has been on the upsurge for several decades now. And, it shows no sign of abating let alone reversing.

For some years now there has been a growing reaction against central governments which are seen rightly or wrongly as remote, uncaring, arrogant, and disconnected with the needs, hopes, and fears of the common folks. One symptom of this phenomenon is the push to governments made up of "people like us." That is people who speak the same language, share the same values, hold the same traditions dear, and believe in the same defining mythology. This in its turn implies a move toward ethnic, religious, linguistic, and cultural identity as the primary means of defining legitimate government and a legitimate state representing the self-conscious nation.

In the Kosovo decision the ICJ has put itself willingly or not, knowingly or not, on the side of this specific historical trajectory. In being selective as to approval of the Kosovo ruling, the Obama administration and others of similar mind in Western Europe have shown a total obliviousness to the emergence and power of this still new and growing trajectory.

As a final irony it is interesting to see the "progressives" being the most reactionary.

Panic In (And Near) The Oval

The really huge buzz last week surrounded the firing of Shirley Sherrod. The woman, a functionary in the Department of Agriculture's Georgia state office was summarily fired after a carefully extracted and edited snippet from a speech she had made to the state's NAACP last spring went on Fox TV and the web.

A flurry of phone calls from the highest reaches of the department and White House demanded Ms Sherrod immediately resign due to the obvious racism expressed in the snippet. No effort was made by her accusers, including the national office of the NAACP, to hear her side of the story. Nor was any effort expended to assess the snippet and its apparent anti-Caucasian sentiments in the context of the entire presentation.

The firing, which was later retracted by President Obama, like the condemnation made by the NAACP, showed an unmistakable panic. It was a rush to judgement of the most intemperate sort. For Ms Sherrod the affair did finally break her way when the entire speech was viewed, the alleged victim of Ms Sherrod's "racism" located, and a few deep breaths taken by the crowd surrounding the Oval Office. The woman received an apology from President Obama and the offer of another, presumably better, job.

"Hey, Geek! I thought you wrote a foreign policy blog. What's the deal here? Have you unilaterally put the Ag Department in the national security establishment? Or just gone, you know, a bit funny?"

Well, Bucko, it's like this. The Sherrod affair has a perfect parallel in the sacking of General Stanley McChrystal whose retirement ceremony went down yesterday evening at Fort McNair. The general was just as much a victim of blind panic in and near the Oval as was Ms Sherrod.

General McChrystal was accused of violating the hoary doctrine of civilian supremacy by virtue of having said uncomplimentary things about Mr Obama and others in the civilian chain of command to a Rolling Stone magazine writer. The comments, unkind as they were, made by either the general or members of his staff, in no way constituted insubordination or even a criticism of the civilian supremacy. (Nor were they inaccurate.)

The general was not given any opportunity to tell his side of the story. Nor were the unkind remarks considered in context. In these ways the situations of Ms Sherrod and General McChrystal were identical.

Any number of pundits and retired conventional soldiers showing the long standing bias against special forces personnel played the role of the NAACP in the Sherrod Affair. This Greek chorus brayed after McChrystal's scalp just as the politburo of the NAACP did in the case of Ms Sherrod. In both cases the chorus sought blood for sins uncommitted but merely imagined on the basis of snippets, edited versions of the totality.

The firings of both Ms Sherrod and General McChrystal were the actions of persons demented by fear and panic. The Nice Young Man (Of The People) From Chicago and his cronies were under the intense pressures of failure grudgingly admitted in the days and weeks before both summary sackings. The president and his "team" had been repeatedly and accurately excoriated for a collective and personal inability to make decisions, act decisively, or even give the appearance of giving the slightest damn about what was happening in and to the US.

The Great Transformational Agenda was falling apart in both its domestic and foreign affairs aspects. The more the president and his surrogates spoke, declaimed, hectored, the less anyone anywhere paid any attention. In the days immediately preceding the McChrystal firing (as well as the Sherrod dismissal) the president was looking more and more as if he had become the walking, talking version of Mao's description of the US--a "paper tiger."

In this situation panic is expectable--but not forgivable. While there were many far better ways in which Mr Obama could have handled the temporary embarrassment of the McChrystal remarks in ways which would have redounded to his credit, Mr Obama acted out of both pique and panic. As a consequence he undercut gravely the national interests of the US not only in Afghanistan but around the world. He also deprived the US of the future services of one of the finest soldiers and warriors to come down the pike in the last half-century or more.

While Mr Obama did the same in the Sherrod Affair, acted out of pique and panic, he could reverse the personal damage, the ill-considered and overly hasty rush to (miscarried) judgement done to the woman personally. And, with all due respect to both Ms Sherrod and the Department of Agriculture, the loss of her services to the US now and in the future did no harm to our national interests.

It is impossible for the president to undo the damage his loss of poise, his succumbing to pique and panic inflicted upon the US in the firing of General McChrystal. All Mr Obama can do is to start writing on volume three of his memoirs, specifically the chapter in which he will try to exculpate himself for the defeat in Afghanistan.

Terminally Adrift At The Policy Level

Both the US and the UK are adrift at the policy level. Potentially, the two allies are fatally floundering in the currents of challenge. This unpleasant situation exists in both London and Washington for the same reason: Neither government is willing and able to acknowledge that they are in a conflict which is tantamount to a total war of national survival with the purveyors and practitioners of violent political Islam.

In matters both great and small the two governments--and their respective publics--have sent mixed messages regarding both the nature of the wars forced upon us and our political will to not only accept the gauntlet but press on until the opposition is crushed. Whether the burka or the Taliban, whether Afghanistan or Pakistan, Somalia or Yemen, Iran's nuclear quest or the effort by Muslims to build a gigantic mosque and monument to Allah's grandeur where once the shadow of the Twin Towers fell, the governments and peoples of both the US and the UK speak with confused voices.

The ground truth upon which the shaky and ultimately fatal drift at the policy level is based is not hard to state--or to understand. Violent political Islam as well as its non-violent kin arises from the religion of Islam. The requirements and justifications for war against the "infidels" even unto death, perhaps most certainly unto death, is written in the Koran, the collected sayings and acts of the Prophet. These requirements and justifications have been commented and elaborated upon for centuries by learned and highly esteemed Islamic theologians and experts on jurisprudence.

While these requirements and justifications are not accepted by all Muslims anymore than violent political Islam is practiced by all followers of Islam, the path of jihad is walked, the justifications and requirements accepted, by a portion of the Muslim community. This reality, unpleasant as it may be to the sincere believers of the ideals of multi-culturalism, has been accepted by no less a paragon of Islamic apology and multi-cultural correctness than the WaPo.

Americans generally and the British generally do not want to accept the idea that violence for political ends may arise organically from religious faith. We are victims of our own successes in separating the communities of faith from the secular state. As a direct consequence, we can afford the luxury of religious tolerance.

The wars of religion reside in our distant past. Never really waged in North America, the wars of faith molder in the collective archives of distant memory, of half or more forgotten lectures about European history. For us the very idea of killing in the name of faith is so bizarre, so reprehensible that it passes the boundary of rationality and enters the dark land of mental illness. Not unlike the Jews of Germany in the 1930s as the flames of antisemitism flared ever higher, we reject the notion that civilized people do that sort of thing, commit that kind of crime, perpetrate that variety of horror.

While many Muslims share the same sense of bewildered outrage which afflicts us when a bomber does his worst, there are those followers of the Prophet who approve the bombing, celebrate the killings of "infidels" and "apostates," who cheer those who inflict slaughter on the unarmed to the heavens above. It is this latter group, the Muslims who either promote and practice violent political Islam or support and approve of those who shed the blood of the innocent, which is the enemy of the US and other civilized states including Great Britain.

Caught in cognitive dissonance between what we wish to be the truth and the ugly realities presented to us by the bombers and trigger-pullers of violent political Islam, we, the Americans, the British, and our respective governments temporize, equivocate, take halfway measures, deliver mixed messages, question the rightness of our cause, find excuses for those who would kill or change us and our societies, and generally go adrift at the policy level.

The world is not the way we would wish it to be. As a result we know we have to do something, but there is nothing we can do which comports well with our beliefs in the secular state and the appeal of religious tolerance and respect.

Consider the burka. This garbage sack like garment is not required by the Koran or other sacred writings but has been imposed in much of the Islamic world by force of custom and the exaggerated fear of hell which is part and parcel of an Islamic upbringing. Because the burka is a highly visible, irrefutable cultural expression of Islamic faith, it has become a focus of attention on both sides of the vast invisible line dividing the Muslim community from that of the assorted "infidels" which comprises the majority of the globe's population.

Public opinion in the US is tolerant of the all-encompassing garbage sack burka. This is probably because so few Americans come into contact with burka caged women. It is hard to have a definite view of something seldom if ever encountered.

The situation is different in Europe. There the burka is common. In France, Spain, the UK, and other Western European countries, the average citizen is likely to encounter the burka daily particularly if living in an urban center. As a consequence, emotions are running high over banning or not banning the garment.

Belgium, France, and Spain are moving rapidly toward a ban of the most extreme versions of the dress, those which cover the face. In England the majority of the public, the hoi polloi, are reported to support a French style ban. Simultaneously, the political elite, the hoi ollogoi, at least as represented by two cabinet members, oppose any ban. One, Caroline Spelman, the Environment Minister, considers the burka to be "empowering" and "conferring dignity."

Not surprisingly, agreement with Minister Spelman's position is not universal. Not even all Muslim women agree with her. The philosophical and political responses to apologists for the burka run the spectrum from classical liberal to ancient conservatism.

Leaving aside the question as to how voluntary wearing the burka might be in a male dominated culture, (Husband, father, or brother to woman, "Wear the burka or else...") the fact remains that the commodious garment allows the ready concealment of a suicide vest. The basic question is simply how comfortable would even the most liberal, multi-culturally, sensitive person be within say twenty meters of a person who might be carrying twenty kilograms of explosive and ball bearings?

An even more fundamental consideration is that of political will. The burka, like the minaret appended to a mosque, is a political expression. Resistance to such alien manifestations within a Western society and its polity is also a political expression. The conflict is one of political will: which side has the greater political will?

In this way, the issues of garbage sacks on women or minarets mirror the larger, bloodier wars in Afghanistan and elsewhere. Whether one considers Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, or even the Iranian "Mahdi Bomb," the crux is political will. The side with the greater will is the side destined to win in any and every one of these foci of conflict between West and political Islam.

One of the most important considerations in developing and maintaining political will is the definition of goal. As important is the defining of the enemy: Who is he and what is he after? Next in line is the necessity of defining and articulating in a compelling way just what motivates us in our fight.

If the US, the UK, and other civilized states are going to prevail, or even survive, in the struggle forced upon us by the Ever Faithful To The One True And Pure Vision Of Islam, it is utterly essential that we escape from the cognitive dissonance which has clouded our thinking, our policies since that horrible day nearly nine years ago. We must accept that not everyone in the world, not every Muslim, accepts the separation of institutions of faith from those of the state which has emerged in the West over the past two or so centuries.

We must accept that there exists a sizable number of Muslims who see the obligations of their faith to include the violent imposing of their beliefs, their law, their customs upon all of us. We must acknowledge that these good Muslims read in their sacred literature a limitless remit to seek a global caliphate in which only the writ of Allah as interpreted by Muslim clerics governs.

The devotees of violent political Islam are neither madmen nor "misunderstanders" of their religion. They are True Believers in their understanding of the requirements of their faith. No apologies for their beliefs and consequent actions are needed. Also unnecessary are well meaning efforts at outreach, accommodation, or appeasement.

The imperatives of their faith preclude all attempts at outreach, accommodation, appeasement. The same imperatives render any efforts at apology or explanation mere exercises in self-delusion.

What is needed, needed far more than weapons or foreign aid, is political will. We are faced by a hydra-headed enemy possessed of a political will of the greatest sort. The only way we can oppose, or better, defeat the violent political Islamist is by having a greater political will held for a longer period.

From the outset the war has been one of political will in which corpses and ruined buildings, like burkas and minarets, are merely means of expressing, testing, and either eroding or reinforcing the political will of each belligerent.

The Danish theologian and philosopher Soren Kierkegaard once wrote, "Purity of heart is to will one thing." Today, it must be recast as, "Success of policy is to will one thing."

One More Hostage And Barricade Day

Here is the situation. A group of criminal suspects are located in a private residence. Women and children are present. When cops arrive they are taken under fire from inside the house.

Here are the choices. Call in a police helicopter with orders to bomb the house. Surround the place, and, if negotiations fail, use minimum necessary force to subdue and capture the suspects.

The advantages of the first choice are these: Low risk of friendly casualties. Saves time.

Disadvantage of first choice: High risk of killing innocent parties.

The advantage of the second option is simply the risk of innocent casualties is minimized.

The disadvantage of the second option is the high probability of police being killed or wounded.

Now for the second scenario. Actionable intelligence is developed indicating that a Taliban mid-level commander and multiple trigger-pullers are present in a compound along with multiple civilian women, children, and non-combatant men.

The choices are the same as in the first hypothetical situation: airstrike or ground assault using minimum force following an attempt at negotiating the surrender of the insurgents.

The advantages and disadvantages of each choice are identical with those outlined in the first situation. The only significant difference--and it is highly significant--is the impact of collateral non-combatant casualties on the larger Afghan public, particularly the uncommitted majority.

There has been only one use of the air power option by a local police force during a hostage and barricade situation in recent American history. That occasion was the use of a state police helicopter delivered homemade bomb on a house in the Move compound during a siege conducted by the Philadelphia police during the days of Rizzo. A number of women and children were injured or killed as a result of the bombing and consequent fire.

In Waco, Texas, the FBI used a heavy ground assault to end the long siege of the Branch Davidian compound. While many, if not all of the deaths of women and children which came in the wake of the breeching vehicle's attack are attributable to fires set by the religious fanatics in the compound, the attack was resoundingly criticized by many Americans as was the bombing of the Move compound in Philadelphia. The Waco attack was also a contributory factor in later terrorist events most importantly the bombing of the Murrah Federal building in Oklahoma City.

In both cases, Philadelphia and Waco, the use of means which caused either directly or indirectly the loss of "non-combatant" lives were negative. In Afghanistan the death or wounding of non-combatants as a collateral to US and ISAF operations is not just negative. This type of death, even if clearly inadvertent, obviously unintended is a defeat.

The often decried McChrystal doctrine of "courageous restraint" was predicated upon a sound understanding that every non-combatant death, every non-combatant injury constituted a victory for Taliban or the other insurgent groups. It was also based upon the historically well rooted view that counterinsurgency is more a species of police action than it is a variety of war.

To men at the sharp point "courageous restraint" smacked of a belief that the life and skin of the American (or British or other ISAF) infantryman was of less value than the lives and skins of the Afghan civilians who, after all, may be civilians now but Taliban fighters later in the day. It is not a surprise that commanders came to see matters in the same way since they were responsible for the lives of those under their command.

The bitter reality as the Geek knows from too much personal acquaintance, the effective counter insurgent, the "winning" counter insurgent must value the lives and skins of the uncommitted majority, the non-combatants, the women and children more highly than he does his own--if he wants success to come his way. That means quite simply that "courageous restraint" may be highly unpleasant to those called upon to show it, but it is the best, cheapest, most certain way to secure the support, assistance and loyalty of the previously uncommitted majority.

And, (here is the nitty-gritty) without the increasing support, assistance and loyalty of the previously uncommitted majority there can be no success. There can be only failure. Defeat.

It is absolutely critical that the onus for killing civilians, non-combatants, particularly women and children fall upon the insurgents. And, only the insurgents.

Indeed one way the counterinsurgent knows he is winning is when the insurgent starts killing women and children, starts slaughtering civilians of the uncommitted majority as a matter of policy and not accident. Recently Mullah Omar, the jefe grande and spiritual father of Taliban reversed the course he set last year and ordered his troops to target civilians, particularly women. So far this year the insurgents have been responsible for the majority of non-combatant fatalities in Afghanistan thus continuing the pattern established last year. Mullah Omar's new order assures the number of civilian corpses will grow, fast.

This switch in Taliban policy makes the necessity of staying with "courageous restraint" all the more critical. If the McChrystal doctrine is abandoned with the same lack of thinking which characterized the general's sacking, it will lessen the effects of Omar's new way of war.

Keeping "courageous restraint" as the primary operational doctrine will go a very long way to mobilizing the uncommitted majority to the US/ISAF/Afghan government side. Omar's kill-our-way-to-victory gambit will turn the uncommitted majority against Taliban with the certainty of the moon governing the tides.

In the short run keeping "courageous restraint" in place will mean a high probability of more dead and maimed Americans. In the longer run it will mean fewer deaths, fewer injuries and a high likelihood of success before the magic date of 2014 or even the Obama pious hope date of mid-2011.

Abandoning "courageous restraint" particularly in light of the Omar Directive will mean less fear and fewer deaths in the short term. And, in the longer term, it will mean failure. Defeat.

War And The Nanny State

The Nanny State loves you. It loves and protects every single one of its children, its wards. The Nanny State will take any and all measures necessary to assure the safety, security, and sanctity of every life clasped to its ample bosom.

The Nanny State is like a very big yellow school bus. A bus complete with monitors inside to assure the children stay seated. Refrain from noise. Don't fight. Or litter. Or show affection.

The big yellow school bus of the Nanny State secures, protects, holds harmless all within. It is safety and security beyond all else.

War is everything the Nanny State is not. War is noisy. War is dirty. War destroys. Worst of all, war kills. The food upon which war, all war great and small, feeds is human life. War exists so that humans may be maimed, devastated, killed.

War and the Nanny State are mutually exclusive. That is a no-brainer. But, even Nanny States must from time to time find it necessary to wage war. What happens then? What happens when the culture of safety, security, and sanctity comes into contact with the realities of war.

The experiences of the UK give some guidance as that country is the prototype, the paradigm of the Nanny State. In its jealous protection of the life and limb of every resident of Great Britain, the government has deployed CCTV cameras beyond count, put into place the most intrusive legislation imaginable, hectored its citizens, sought to outlaw, ban, prohibit, forbid, behaviors thought to be damaging to the individual. Far more even than Canada, let alone the US, the UK has bent every effort to hold its citizens harmless from all the perils of life, including those of the self-inflicted variety.

Nonetheless, the Nanny State of Britain did go to war in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Ruing the decision to join the Bush/Cheney sponsored Great Adventure in Regime Change, the British withdrew from Iraq as quickly as they could without fatally impairing the Anglo-American "special relationship." The British Army, Royal Marines, and RAF remain in Afghanistan to the present day.

But the troops do not remain without causing distress among the folks back home. When the aggregate British combat fatalities edged above the century mark a few weeks back, there were more than a few moans in the land once led by Winston Churchill to the effect that enough is enough, bring the troops home.

The new coalition government is holding firm even though internal divisions in the senior ministers over when and how to conduct disengagement have been visible. This "steady-on, lads," position may exist right now, but that is no guarantee it will last long.

Now, let's step back in time. Say about thirty years. Back to the days of the "Iron Lady," PM Margaret Thatcher. Back to the months of the Falkland Islands War. The Argentinian invasion resulted in a war which was long on preliminaries and rather short in combat days. Still, the bill presented to the British public was 255 men killed in action or died of wounds.

That's right, more than double the butcher's bill for eight plus years in Afghanistan.

The British public cheered itself hoarse. Applause for the war, the troops, and Maggie Thatcher was universal. The dead were mourned. They were honored for their "sacrifice." Life went on. There was no gnashing of teeth, no wringing of hands over the horrible cost in British lives--not even on the Left of British politics, the customary home of such melodramatics.

But, wait, the Geek can hear you object. "The Falkland Islands War was short. It was justified by the unprovoked aggression of the Argies. The goal was easy to articulate and understand. And, the victory was complete as well as obvious."

All quite true, bucko. The Geek would add, "All the troops were volunteers. The British had abandoned National Service years earlier."

So, we can go back further in time. Back to a war which was long, a war that lasted half again as long as the current fracas in Afghanistan has. Back to a war fought for hazy purposes of state policy, policy which was not well articulated to the public or necessarily approved of by those who did understand the reasons. A war which was fought in part by British draftees.

The war was the Malayan Emergency. It lasted from 1948-1960 although the majority of the British fighting and dying occurred in the first three years. The war was one of pure counter-insurgency in which the opponent was the Chinese minority fueled by the success of the Chinese Communists back home.

The British lost some 550 men in combat. This was a smaller number than the aggregate of the Malayan and Commonwealth forces, but was still significant considering that the war was poorly understood, had no sharp goal, did not result in a clear cut victory, and was automatically opposed by the Communist Party and others of the far Left back in Blighty.

Both Conservative and Labor governments continued the war. There was little if any real opposition. No marches. No demonstrations. No decrying or defeatism in the press. And, precious little hand-wringing or brow-beating over the deaths of service personnel including National Servicemen.

It is easy to account for the difference in attitude between that which prevailed during either the Falkland Islands War or the Malayan Emergency and that which exists and is growing today. The difference is the emergence, the conquest as it were, of the Nanny State.

The British public has been so indoctrinated in the safety, security, and sanctity of life above all else values of the Nanny State that the idea, let alone the reality, of men dying for obscure purposes of state in faraway places of no real concern to the average person is utter anathema. This attitude, this consequence of acculturation, is having real political and diplomatic consequences. More importantly, the longer the mentality of the Nanny State persists, the more the British government will find itself disallowed from using force in support of policy.

Inevitably, this will mean that British influence on the global stage will decrease. Carrots alone will not suffice when a state must deal with the asses of the world. Even when the carrots are reinforced by non-violent means of coercion, by economic sanctions for example, the results are unlikely to be satisfactory.

There is a lesson here for the US. We are well on our way down the primrose path to the perdition of the Nanny State. Our reasons and motives may be different, but the consequences are the same--an undue focus on the limited goals of safety, security, and sanctity of life. While these three are nice, even important, if they are allowed to become the end all and be all of our collective existence as a people and a polity, the end result will be toothlessness in the face of threats.

The lacking of political will to use force in support of policy is a form of ultimate unilateral disarmament. It assures that no matter how advanced and impressive our munitions of war, our machines of war might be, they are of no real world utility. Neither will it matter how large and fine looking our soldiers, sailors, airmen might be, the reality is that they will be mere decorations without usefulness.

It is political will, the willingness of a nation to risk its own at war, to accept casualties, accept deaths that gives a country the ultimate force of diplomacy--the will to use armed force when there is no other alternative. The Nanny State understanding of life precludes the willful placing of citizens in danger. It also militates against the killing of others, the killing even of those who would do us direct and real harm.

To put the sharpest point on the reality of the Nanny State, the more we accept the dictates of the Nanny State, the more impotent the US becomes as a global or even regional actor. The fear of death and killing engendered by the mindset of the Nanny State condemns a nation to the bottom of the world's diplomatic heap.

England is already headed to the bottom at flank speed. For us the question is simple. Do we want to go there as well?

Let's Try Bribery--Again

Stripped of all the high minded and lofty rhetoric, foreign aid is simply bribery much of the time. It is an attempt to create a simulacrum of coinciding national interest. That is, when there is an insufficiency of actual coinciding national interest so that two states can work jointly on a joint problem, foreign aid can be trotted out to manufacture the appearance of coincidence of interest.

For obvious reasons this kind of fiction is generally the prerogative of Great Powers, or, at least, countries laden with cash or other equally useful and attractive items. The potlatch of bribe-your-way-to-an-alliance hit a (temporary) pinnacle of drunk sailor spending during the Cold War. The old Soviet Union built steel mills in countries without iron ore while China built eight lane divided highways or dual track railroads from Nowhere to Nothingness. For its part, the US scattered shiny new weapons and fresh from the factory warlike stores to armed forces better suited to brigandage than to any real national security use.

At least most of the recipient states had the common courtesy to stay bought for at least a few years. And, these grateful new allies and supporters of whichever Great Power had spilled the greatest amount of its wealth rarely crossed the line from bribery--a limited activity--to flat out extortion--an endless exercise in ever increasing demands.

Bribery as a tool of foreign policy entered into a brief decline during the years immediately following the end of the Cold War. It was no longer necessary for the US to rent-a-friend by foreign aid largess in most of the world.

There were, however, exceptions. One was Egypt. The US under four administrations has felt (word used advisedly as the process has been less than rational, other than based on careful calculation) that Egypt must continue to be bribed lest something unspecified but terrible occur. Another exception was carved out for Pakistan.

In the case of Pakistan the thin and wavering line separating bribery from extortion was crossed years ago, during the days of Bill Clinton. For each and every year of the Clinton, W. Bush, and, now, Obama administrations, the extortion campaign waged by Islamabad has accelerated. Each of these presidents has felt the need to pay more and more tribute to the Pakistanis lest something horrid happen.

Lest, for example, the Pakistanis gain nuclear power status. Lest, for example, the Pakistanis stir up more trouble with India, or in Afghanistan. Lest, for example, the Pakistanis surrender to the importuning and threats of the Islamists. Lest, for example, the Pakistanis fail to fight with valor and dedication against the terrorists of al-Qaeda, Taliban, and the Haqqani network. Lest, for example, Islamabad cozies up with the Trolls of Beijing.

Billions of dollars have flowed from future generations of Americans to the leaders and military commanders of today's Pakistan. The result of all these bribes, of answering all the extortionate demands of the government and military of Pakistan?

The Pakistanis have the bomb. The Pakistanis have worked overtime to exacerbate tensions with India. The army and government of Pakistan have waged a quarter-hearted war against carefully selected portions of the Islamist/jihadi congeries in the FATA. Islamabad has cozied up with Beijing to the extent of entering into a deal to purchase two Chinese nuclear reactors despite the objections of the US.

Wow! With this record it seems only sensible that we ship another giant bunch of money to Pakistan. Perhaps the concept "more is more" will work. This time.

Secretary of State Clinton, who is well-known to harbor significant doubts regarding the reliability of Pakistan in the "common" war against Islamic terrorist groups (OOPS! Bad Geek! The Geek meant to write, "radical extremest groups") is in Pakistan with a wad of cash in her hand.

The cash, one and half gigabucks worth, is the first installment of the seven and a half billion promised by Congress for civilian development projects over the next five years. This masterpiece of fabricating the appearance but not the reality of coinciding national interest, the Kerry-Lugar-Berman act, was passed last year. The intent is to purchase Pakistani cooperation in the war against al-Qaeda, Taliban, and the Haqqani Network as well as to buy a large measure of economic, social, and political stability in the country.

Ms Clinton, in announcing the payment of the civilian portion of the annual Pakistani Extortion Scheme, made loud reference as to the emphasis on civilian development as being a dramatic departure from the bad old days of George W. Bush. She is, of course, being quite economical with the truth.

George W. Bush's administration did hand over ten or so billion dollars in military aid to the military junta which ran Pakistan. This is what the Pakistanis demanded lest something horrid but unspecified occur. Similarly Ms Clinton's husband, Bill, did the same when he was in the Oval. So did George H.W. Bush. And, Ronald Reagan.

It is simple to understand why all these presidents paid off in military coin. When one is paying bribery or extortion, one pays in the coin demanded by the recipient. The Pakistanis have always preferred the warlike to the peaceful as they live in a paranoid fear and desire for one more war with India.

Adding civilian assistance, the building of dams, irrigation projects, infrastructure, electric generation plants, and the like is a form of bonus. The real deal continues to be the military assistance. When the US insisted on providing equipment more suitable to counterinsurgency than to a force-on-force war with India, it was necessary to sweeten the deal--again lest something horrid but unspecified occur.

The sweetener, the bonus is the Kerry-Lugar-Berman Soak Our Great-Grandchildren-To-Rent-The-Paks bill. As with all previous bribes or extortion payments, the money will be spent, some projects will be finished in a blare of Thanks Be To Our Government And Allah The Most Merciful And Compassionate propaganda. And, Islamabad will do what it wants to regardless of US interests or representations.

Islamabad has a ready portfolio of reasons why it cannot do what the US desires. It is oh-so-easy to point at the low repute in which the US is held by the great Pakistani public. It is oh-so-easy to say the US is responsible for the animus held against it due to our Predator attacks, or the presence of US troops in Afghanistan, or US support for Israel, or, even the tolerance showed to homosexuals in the US.

"See! You Americans do it to yourselves! And, that is why, we, the democratically elected government of Pakistan cannot and will not compromise our sovereignty by fighting terrorists or seeking genuine peace with India or even not buying Chinese plutonium producing power reactors."

Unless, of course, the US sends more money. Do that and amazing things can happen. For enough of a bribe, we will even grant visas to the more than four hundred diplomatic personnel who have been waiting for weeks, months. Money can move mountains. (Provided doing so does not run across Pakistani national interests as the Paks define them.)

Mr Obama, Ms Clinton, and Congress have set the stage for We the People to once more learn a basic lesson. Bribery is limited in its effects. Extortion has no limits to its demands.

They just don't teach that sort of thing at Harvard Law School, do they?

Get A Grip, Mr President--It's A Real War---

And you are in charge of it. You may not like the idea, Mr Obama; it may perturb your tidy little lawyerly mind; it may disrupt even more your visions of transforming the US into a socialist republic, but the world insists--there is a war out there. A war which if lost by the US and the rest of the civilized states means the blackest of dark days will be upon us.

It appears that the al-Shabaab inspired if actually indigenously conducted bombings during the World Cup finals which littered Kampala with blood and body parts has convinced you that al-Qaeda and its ilk have no respect for the "lives of Africans." This particular outrage, unlike all the others perpetrated by practitioners of violent political Islam during your administration's life, has persuaded you that they "do not regard African life as valuable in and of itself."

The spectacle of maimed and murdered black bodies has moved you, Mr President, to violate your own prohibition against naming names and pointing the finger of guilt at those who deserve it--the jihadists, the suicide bombers, the exploders of remote controlled lethal machines, the people who believe above all else that their particular and perverted notions of the Will of Allah both makes right and necessary the killing of any convenient civilian target--provided the killing garners headlines and invokes fear. The innumerable deaths, the countless wounded resulting from other attacks directed against Israelis, Westerners, Arabs, Afghans, Pakistanis, and oh so many others may not have rubbed your nose in the reality of the war declared by the True Warriors of The One True Faith, but this time they went too far--they slaughtered people of black skin.

Well, Mr President, get a firm grip on this ground truth: War is race neutral. The Mighty Men of the Koran are equally willing to kill regardless of race, creed, national origin, age, or any of the other federally recognized categories for defining victims in need of protection. The Always Brave And Victorious Fighters Of Islam know no exempt classes--any who are not of us are against us is their motto.

The devotees of political Islam, regardless of name, place of origin, or specifics of agenda are linked by the web of hatred for any and all who oppose them, any who refuse to submit to the True Faith as they define it. They make no distinctions between Americans and Ugandans, between Africans and non-Africans. For the jihadis, all infidels are equally deserving of death.

(Of course, historically, Arabs, and al-Shabaab is predominantly comprised of Arabs, have shown a particular predilection for holding black Africans in contempt. Black Africans were for many centuries seen only as fit candidates for enslavement. The terrible trade in human flesh was conducted by Arabs for generations before the Europeans arrived. And, there is powerful evidence that the Arab lust for purchasing black Africans as chattel continues to the present day. This gives a real piquancy to your remarks on South African television. African life is of value to Arabs only insofar as it is a marketable commodity.)

The reality which you have yet to admit is that the war being waged against us by the jihadi and those states which harbor, facilitate, and to some extent direct and control their actions is global in nature. It is not limited to Afghanistan. Nor is a simple and necessary extension of the war's area to Pakistan sufficient. Even adding Somalia to the list of war zones is insufficient.

As today's attacks in southern Yemen makes manifest, the new, improved, and renamed al-Qaeda in the Arab Peninsula (AQAP), has a very real capacity to kill and, by so doing, further destabilize the very fragile country of Yemen. Given the several armed threats confronting the corrupt, inefficient, broke central government of which AQAP is far from the least, there is a great likelihood that Yemen will soon join Somalia in the roster of failed states.

When, not if, that happens, the jihadis will have a stranglehold on the entrance to the Red Sea with the negative implications for global trade that ability brings with it. As a failed state, Yemen will provide a safe haven for the jihadis who hold the House of Saud in the greatest contempt as an apostate regime with a record of truckling to the infidels of the West. This potential is guaranteed to perturb the sleep not only of the Saudi royals but the equally apostate heads of states throughout the Gulf region.

And--need it be written?--as a failed state Yemen will prove a fertile ground for the Iranians. The mullahs have an unsurpassed record in effectively developing proxies. Adding AQAP to the roster would provide a new level of flexibility and horizontal escalation potential to Tehran's quiver.

The dark potentials resident in the collapse of Yemen will demand that some state or group of states intervene. The most directly threatened are Saudi Arabia and other Gulf littoral countries, but, the notion of actually fighting a war, particularly one with the jihadis of AQAP, may be more than the very cautious Saudis can stomach.

The US has not been directly threatened by the imminent success of al-Shabaab in Somalia. It will be only indirectly threatened when Yemen goes down the Islamist tubes. But, as Mr Obama noted in his indignation on South African national television, the US was attacked indirectly when its embassies in Tanzania and Kenya were bombed during the Clinton years. The line between indirect and direct threats in thin, wavy, and hazy.

This implies that the US does have a palpable stake in both Yemen and Somalia. When the responsibility of the US during both the Clinton and W. Bush administrations for the creation of current Somalia is considered, the nature of the stakes is enhanced.

We and the rest of the Civilized States created Somalia in its present form by a combination of ill-considered intervention and even less well advised retraction. The dynamic behind the Somalian mess is essentially identical to that which assured the creation of Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan--robust intervention followed by hasty retraction. In recent months the same pattern has been clearly observable in US policy toward Yemen. The result is virtually foreordained.

Wars--like foreign policy generally--are successful only if there is a clearly stated goal, a definition of success which is organic to the goal, and a resolutely followed consistent focus on orchestrating the instruments of national power to achieve the goal. Hesitation, irresolution, vacillation, the alternating tough words and outreach are each and all guaranteed to assure failure.

The US under several successive administrations has followed the same route--the way of robust entrance and hasty exit, the avenue of tough words and soft deeds. The result has been the creation and strengthening of the advocates of violent political Islam. The consequence has been a war which has deepened and widened until it comprises much of the world.

Unless President Obama is willing to enlarge his personal "teachable moment" and see that the US is engaged in a war which we most assuredly did not seek but absolutely must win, there is no hope of reversing the dangerous trend of the past twenty plus years. While there is little realistic reason to conclude the current man in the Oval will see the light, it must be hoped (prayed?) that he do so as time is not on the side of the good guys in this war to the death.

Time Is On The Side Of War

In the years before World War I large sections of the British politically articulate classes became increasingly convinced that British power, particularly naval power, had peaked and would soon decline in relation to Germany. The idea of war became increasingly thinkable as there was a pervasive belief that time was on the side of the Kaiser and not Britannia.

Today the same situation exists but now it holds forth on both sides of the great divide and not just one. There is good reason for Iranians and Israelis both to have the idea that time is working to the disadvantage of each.

It is arguably true that Iranian power is peaking in comparison to Israel's. When Iran gains even a rudimentary nuclear capacity, the Jewish state is under real and immediate threat.

It is arguably true that Iran is facing potentially fatal internal opposition now that the merchants of the bazaars in Tehran and other large cities have been expressing not only anti-tax but anti-government sentiments. The Iranian government's stability is in no way assisted by the effects of the new sanctions imposed by the European Union and the US. There will be more shortages, more unemployment, more unrest, more repression.

In a very real sense then the rulers of Iran may be expected to conclude that now represents their last, best chance to go to (indirect) war for purposes of regime maintenance and diplomatic diversion. The availability of competent proxies such as Hezbollah and Hamas provide the needed avenue for indirect war.

On the Israeli side of the hill it is to be expected that the country's strategists have seen all the alternatives available to the mullahs in the proxy war category--and will not be diverted from their main enemy, Iran. The awareness that being distracted, tied down both militarily and diplomatically in a proxy war in Lebanon would provide advantage only to Iran must pervade the corridors of Israeli political and military command.

In a quirky way the situation resembles not only that before August 1914 but the contest over who would invade Norway first in 1940, Germany or England. For Iran, it is critical to let the Hezbollah dogs of war loose before Israel makes the go decision to strike Iran's nuclear facilities. For Israel the necessity is hitting Iran before the proxy war, the Hezbollah threat, puts the diplomatic kibosh on any hope of a direct attack on Iran.

Both Iran and Israel have good reasons to resort to war. At the moment the conventional advantage rests with Israel. However, Iran has demonstrated great skill at offsetting conventional advantage with creative use of proxies and terror.

And, at the moment, Iran has the initiative. Iran can decide when and to what initial extent Hezbollah is to be cranked up. After that, of course, Iran will not be able to control either the extent or the intensity of the Israeli-Hezbollah conflict, which includes the potential that Israel will be able to ignore diplomatic strictures and go for the master behind the puppet.

Israel's freedom of action as well as its ability to ignore any diplomatic repercussions resulting from retaliating to Hezbollah provocations is enhanced by the general perception within the Arab states that the world is much better off if Iran does not get the Big Bomb than would be the case if it did. While only the UN representative of the UAE has made this explicit, there can be no doubt but he was speaking publicly what all others have been saying in private.

Other than Syria there are no Iran fans to be found in the Arab states. The depth of Syrian commitment to the Iranian cause would be tested severely if Israeli retaliation to Hezbollah spilled over into Syria. It would be tested even more severely should Israel seek to buy its peace on the Syrian front by giving the Golan Heights back. That option would have more appeal when taken in conjunction with an ongoing confrontation with Hezbollah and the need for a hard strike on the main enemy, Iran.

Iran has allies on the wider stage but only one, China, is a Great Power. Others, including Russia and Germany, may have interests, primarily economic, in play in Iran but are not or are no longer willing to go to the mat to protect Iran's right to join the Nuclear Club. Words may fly like automatic weapons fire at the UN and other fora but without real conviction and without backing on the action front.

The American administration may, in contemporary jargon, "be deeply conflicted" over any Israeli retaliation to Hezbollah provocation as well as a go-it-alone Israel strike on the Iranian nuclear facilities but will be unable to do anything about it. The political realities of America assure that the Obama administration would be unable to do more than rhetorically hand-wring and counsel "restraint" without expecting the Israeli government to heed the exhortations.

No one will be happy should push come to shove in Lebanon and Iran. Any attack on Iran will derail the fragile global economic recovery as oil prices spike. The noise of terrorist bombs and the body parts of suicide bombers will shatter the quiet and litter the landscape as political Islamists seek their opportunity in the window of chaos opened by any Israeli attack on Iran--or occurring as a sideline to the Hezbollah proxy war.

When the war comes, when Iran unleashes Hezbollah or when Israel preempts by hitting Iran's nuclear constellation, it will be in large measure the result of failed US diplomacy. Two successive American administrations--W. Bush and Obama--have faltered before the challenge of Iranian ambitions. Tough--overly tough--words were backed by weak and vacillating actions to the ultimate advantage of the Iranian regime. Lines were drawn on ever-shifting sand, again to the ultimate advantage of the Iranians.

It must be recalled that whatever benefits Iran acts to the disadvantage not only of Israel and the Mideast but the totality of the world. That is the most discouraging implication of the dismal record of two administrations. The US failed completely in its paramount goal of acting to preserve the global balance of power which acts not so much to the advantage of the US as to the peace of the world.

With every passing day Israel is in more of a get-or-get-got position. Every day the choice for Israel narrows: Fight the war of our choice or fight one of Iran's choice and timing.

Any reasonably able strategist knows the answer to that problem.

"The Kids" Are Getting Plumb Dangerous

Al Shabaab, (the youth, if you prefer English) has hit outside its home turf of Somalia for the first time. It was a hard hit. A hard hit which "The Kids" had promised if Uganda did not remove its "occupying" troops from the few blocks which comprise the writ of the Transitional Federal Government.

The High Minded and Lofty Thinking diplomats of the West created the fiction of the Transitional Federal Government (TFG) and then abandoned the field to the forces of the African Union. The AU is notoriously long on ambition and delusions of adequacy. It is equally short on competence, funding, able armed forces, and consistent political will.

When all the AU promises had been made, only Uganda and Burundi sent peacekeeping forces. Of these, the Ugandans have done the most freight hauling. Uganda has done this for several reasons, none of which are altruistic. In large measure the Ugandan government has kept its presence in Mogadishu as an emblem of its enlarging status on the continent.

With the discovery and proving of significant oil reserves, Uganda has been announcing its ambitions to be a major player in African affairs. New visions of prosperity and the status which such will bring in its wake have been accompanied by apparent success in finally defeating the long running sore caused by the Lords Resistance Army's insurgency. Muscle flexing in Somalia can be seen as a natural extension of these factors as well as a counter to the influx of refugees from Somalia.

The deadly triple bombing during the World Cup final game in Uganda's capital Kampala gives the country's government a stark choice: withdraw from Somalia or enlarge the effort. Neither option is good.

Al Shabaab is riven at present between two major competing factions. One wants to focus on the final elimination of the TFG and the installation of a shariah compliant Islamist regime. The other, the internationalist wing which is aligned with al-Qaeda and numbers hundreds of foreign fighters in its ranks, wants to export the war to other countries in the Horn of Africa including not only Uganda but Kenya as well. The Kampala attack hints that the internationalists are either winning the internecine struggle or are both willing and able to go it alone.

Either of these two alternatives indicates that the very dynamic the US feared when it employed the Ethiopian army as a proxy to eliminate the Islamic Courts Union (ICU) is coming to pass. The ICU was seen by the US as providing another safe haven for violent political Islamists of the al-Qaeda variety. The extirpation of this potential was seen as both necessary and high priority.

The failure of the US and other Western governments to look one day beyond that upon which the ICU was deposed guaranteed that the aftermath would be worse. As Somalia has never been other than a mere geographic expression in which all politics were local and clan based, the avenue of chaos was wide open to any group sufficiently motivated and willing to kill. Of the various groups so oriented, al-Shabaab was the most dedicated and most willing to pile up corpses.

With the exception of former British Somalia, which peeled itself away from the rest of the mess assembled by Western diplomats at the UN a half century earlier, Somalia rapidly fell under the shariah clad heel of al-Shabaab. Resistance to "The Kids" was just enough to ensure the group became more and more extreme, more willing to kill, more dedicated to winning--and more willing to call for outside support.

It was the political equivalent of a person taking just enough antibiotic to assure the weak bacteria were killed and the survivors made stronger, more resistant, and more deadly. Al-Shabaab is comprised of battle tested and slaughter hardened survivors.

These indigenous survivors have been reinforced in recent months by equally battle tested and slaughter hardened fighters from other theaters including Iraq and Afghanistan. They have also been joined by recruits from the twenty plus years of Somalian diaspora. Arabs, Afghans, Uzbeks, returning refugees or the children of refugees, all are united by the ideology of violent political Islam, by the vision of a global caliphate or, at the least, by a deep and abiding hatred of the infidels of the West and all the baggage those infidels carry.

The less than half-hearted measures taken to date by the US and other Western countries to bring, or, to err on the side of accuracy, impose, stability on Somalia have done absolutely nothing useful. All have been counterproductive. From the cut-and-run decision taken by President Clinton in the wake of the killing of nineteen special forces troops in an ill-conceived and worse executed attempt to "arrest" a Somalian warlord nearly twenty years ago to the present time, the actions of the US could not have been more carefully calculated to produce an Islamist victory and the dreaded new safe harbor for al-Qaeda.

The triple bombing in Kampala should serve as a wakeup call not simply for Uganda or the AU but for the US and the West generally. The hope that proxies would provide a low risk, low cost way of preventing an Islamist takeover of Somalia has been proven disastrously wrong. Al-Shabaab has shown a will and ability to engage in significant horizontal escalation of the war. It is no longer an internal matter, resident in Somalia alone.

With the Kampala attack "The Kids" have shown their threats to Kenya and elsewhere must be taken seriously. The Bad Boys Of The True Faith can and will make good on their threats. The proof is in the mangled bodies of those who died, shredded by al-Shabaab's bombs. "The Kids" own the initiative now. They can choose when, where, and how to strike. No country, certainly not Kenya, nor Yemen is safe.

It will not be sufficient to leave the task up to the AU. While the association may want that to be the case, the bitter ground truth is that the Union is not up to the job. Not even a massive influx of foreign money will change that. Only years of careful training backed by shipments of modern equipment can spin up the AU forces to a level of skill which would allow them to undertake either effective stability operations in Somalia or adequately guard against replays of the Kampala attack.

That leaves the usual fall back--the US and the West. Considering that the US is still neck deep in the Big Muddy of Afghanistan, it is not in the cards for Washington to send in the Marines or the airborne. Considering the West is locked in a losing contest of wills with Iran on the rather critical matter of the mullahs getting their Mahdi Bomb, it staggers the imagination to conclude that the European Union or any member state will decide to send troops to Somalia.

To go completely outside the box--how about Russia? That's a non-starter considering that the Kremlin cannot even deal effectively, "clarify and put to order" in the words of Vladimir Putin, the Islamist insurgency in the Caucasus--and that is conveniently close to Russia.

To keep on pushing the envelop of theoretical possibilities--what about China? Well, China always needs more oil and Uganda has oil. Perhaps China can form its version of Blackwater security and contract with Kampala. That would assure one country could be held harmless against "The Kids."

No. The Geek was being jocose. Even as a hedge against the loss of Iranian oil, China is quite pleased to sit back and watch--as it deals with its own homegrown Islamists.

In short, there will be no volunteers from anywhere willing and able to take on "The Kids." Any way the political-military cake is sliced, al-Shabaab looks to get the biggest piece. Worse, the auguries point to the better organized, more resolute, more ambitious internationalist faction winning out over the provincials so as to assure that Somalia will be both the long feared safe haven and a major exporter of both violence and political Islam.

Oh, well, as Allah wills.

Hey! Remember That Big Ocean Off California?

Somebody in the current administration, probably not the Clueless Guy In The Oval, has recalled the US in fact not only abuts the Pacific Ocean but is a Pacific Ocean power. That's right, just like Japan or, gasp!, the Peoples Republic of China. Gosh, if that's really true, maybe we ought to act like one.

Miraculous as it to relate, we are acting as if we are both a Pacific Ocean power and a Great Power. Specifically, the US has just engaged in a nifty little bit of force projection. Three of the four Ohio class SSBNs converted from hauling Trident ICBMs to carting 154 Tomahawk cruise missiles each have been deployed to the Pacific and Indian Oceans.

On 28 June the USS Ohio surfaced near Subic Bay in the Philippines. On the same day two other boats, the USS Michigan popped up off Pusan, South Korea while the USS Florida emerged from the depths at Diego Garcia.

The essentially simultaneous surfacing of three boats with a total of four hundred sixty-two Tomahawks was a guaranteed attention grabber. Governments which are not noted for their close and collaborative relations with the US (can we say, "China" or "North Korea") must have felt, as intended, a slight, cold chill run up their metaphorical spines. In an understated but quite dramatic way the US reminded all hands in Asia that it had an unrivaled capacity to project force anywhere the oceans of the world ran.

Four hundred sixty-two non-nuclear warheads--that's a quarter of million tons of high explosive in aggregate--were positioned to hit targets with a high degree of accuracy anywhere inside twenty-five hundred klicks of the launch site. That's a lot of bang, and, given the combination of targeting, air defense capacities, and saturation launching, a lot of bang with a high probability of getting through to the designated point on the map.

In large part, as the deployment points make clear, this show of force is a push back against the increasingly robust Chinese presence in the South China Sea as well as its installation of roughly a thousand missiles of various sorts near the Strait of Taiwan. For some time states in the West Pacific, ranging from Australia to Vietnam to Japan and South Korea have been urging the US government (and the Oval in particular) to show a calibrated degree of macho in the region.

And, finally, belatedly but effectively, the US has done just that. Taken in conjunction with the very large Rim of the Pacific war games off Hawaii, which involves no fewer than fourteen countries, and the smaller but closer CARAT 2010 exercises off Singapore in which ships from the US Navy and the navies of eight other countries are participating, the presence of the three Ohio class conversions is a very, very compelling shot across the bows of any adversarial government.

The Trolls of Beijing got the message. The Trolls' acknowledgement of the new reality was conveyed by the extremely restrained words of the Chinese foreign ministry. There were no shrill accusations of "Cold War mentality" or "retrogressive actions." No. There was simply a response showing that the Chinese government "hoped" the mission was intended to secure regional "stability, security and peace."

They got that right. There is nothing like a bit of quiet force projection to insure those three desirable states prevail.

China is not the only intended recipient of the message being sent by the one time boomers and the twin naval exercises. Three hundred plus of the BGM-109s are now uncomfortably close to the Democratic Republic of North Korea.

The Hermits of Pyongyang undoubtedly understand quite well that the potential barrage of reasonably accurate Tomahawks could not be stopped and could inflict unacceptable damage on critical targets. With only a few clicks of the mouse and turning of launch keys, North Korea would find itself caught in the "sea of fire" which it has so often and loudly proclaimed to be the fate of the South. And, that would occur without a single American coming into range.

North Korea has announced its sudden willingness to come back to the Six Power Talks. It is conceivable that Dear Leader and Associates made the decision out of gratitude for the milksop Security Council Statement on the sinking of the Choenan. Well, it is one theory.

If one wants to do so, one could credit the Chinese imposed restraint of the Security Council action plus creative Chinese diplomacy with the change in Pyongyang's attitude. Or, one could posit that the sudden and quite unstoppable presence of the Tomahawk carrying US submarines showed the Hermits that the limits of American patience were in sight.

It is possible that even Mr Obama has had it up to his dandruff with the stance taken by North Korea and decided that the US had big sticks which it might as well wave to good effect. At least it would be nice to conclude the US president had suffered a bout of realism. Or, that someone such as SecDef Gates had gotten through to the president. That the president had finally been made to realize the use of force, symbolically in this case, could do more to preserve both peace and American interests than the much loved open hand of outreach.

Whatever the reason and whoever made the decision to add the dramatic appearance of the Ohio class boats to the mix of previously scheduled exercises has done a real service to both the US and the cause of regional stability. A well timed and discretely executed show of force provides a fine sort of coercive diplomacy.

Coercive diplomacy focuses the mind of the recipient on the need, the imperative for the less robust form of diplomacy, the talks and memos of what used to be called the "striped pants set." In short, a bit of illustrative coercion creates the proper atmosphere for negotiations. Now it will be interesting to see how the US, China, North Korea, and the others progress at the bargaining table.

Throughout the talks, be they long or short, productive or sterile, the long shadow of the Tomahawks will be hanging over the proceedings. And, that may be the most potent force for good.